Artist’s Resale Right Regulations

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for my noble friend the Minister, so I regret supporting this amendment but I feel that I should do so. First, I declare an interest. I am a director of, and a shareholder in, Waddington Galleries, which deals in modern and contemporary art. Because of this interest, anything that I may say in objection to artists’ resale rights will no doubt be met by the legendary Mandy Rice-Davies retort, ““Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?””. However, I would like to raise the issue of the minimum level at which the resale levy is payable—a point also referred to by previous speakers, who noted that the regulation established it at only €1,000, despite the European Union having set the level at €3,000. I can raise this issue with a clear conscience because Waddington Galleries’ sales are of a far higher value and this part of the directive would not affect the gallery. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, discussions within Europe about artists’ resale rights have been going on for a number of years, and the British Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, have been stalwart in opposing some of the measures which would adversely affect the British art market. In the case of the threshold, the Government argued in favour of €10,000. In the Internal Market Council agreement, a figure of €4,000 was decided on but was later reduced to €3,000 as a result of conciliation between the European Parliament and the Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has already mentioned, as a result, the Government voted against this directive. It seems extraordinary that the Government, having opposed this part of the directive so strongly, have made it even more restrictive than the figure they had previously challenged. At this point, I should say that I do not really understand the figures quoted by the Minister about the costs of administering the scheme. According to the DTI impact assessment, the cost is considerably higher. As I understand it, at a threshold of €3,000, the artist would receive slightly more than the costs involved in collecting the money. At a threshold of €1,000, the artist would only receive the princely sum of between £18 and £20, and the total cost of collection would be approximately £40. Does that make any sense? The Dutch and Austrian Governments, who supported the UK in opposing the directive, clearly do not think so as they have already legislated to exclude sales below €3,000. Nor did the Minister think that it made sense when he said to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee last year that reducing the threshold below €3,000 would mean that,"““the administrative costs become an absurdly high proportion of the actual payments which will go to artists””." What, I wonder, has made him change his mind? No doubt he is trying to help the lower-paid artists, but the amount that the artist would receive is derisory. It is interesting that in a letter to the Times artists of the stature of David Hockney, Michael Craig-Martin and Howard Hodgkin argued against the low threshold of €1,000. They said:"““It will undoubtedly envelop the market . . . in red tape and it will discourage art dealers from buying particularly the work of emerging artists””." My friends in business often complain to me about government bureaucracy and red tape and I normally give a robust defence but, in this case, I would find it impossible to do so. So, perhaps, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in a recent speech to the CBI,"““for some time I have been concerned about what is called the goldplating of European regulation where in the process of translation into our own UK laws we end up with additional and unnecessary burdens””." As I said, I have the greatest respect for the Minister and I will listen to his reply with interest. I hope that he will revert to his earlier view that a threshold below €3,000 would not make sense.